A REDESIGN OF THE EENHANA WASTE

STABILIZATION PONDS

A DESIGN PROJECT REPORT

By

Israel Haimbili (201501969)

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of BSc. (Hon) Degree in Civil

and Environmental Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Damas Mashauri

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF NAMIBIA

DECEMBER 2020
 ©2020
Israel N.P Haimbili
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this design project report is that of my own work and that it was
not produced before. Acknowledgements are given where others have contributed as
well as to the authors of the literature.
The work was done under the supervision of Prof. Damas Mashauri at the Faculty of
Engineering and Information Technology, Ongwediva.

ISRAEL N.P HAIMBILI …………………….……. DATE: …………………

(Student)

PROF DAMAS MASHAURI……………………... DATE: ………………...

(Supervisor)

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this report to my parents, for their constant support and guidance during my
studies at the University of Namibia.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Damas

Mashauri for his invaluable assistance, motivation and insights leading through this
design project. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and putting together
this report.

I am grateful to my classmates, Head of Department, Staff Members and the entire

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology for their unyielding support and
encouragement.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank God for his unwavering love, guidance and
support during my studies at the University of Namibia.

v
 ABSTRACT

Eenhana is the capital of Ohangwena Region, in northern Namibia. The town uses waste
stabilization ponds for the treatment of all wastewater generated. Waste stabilization
ponds (WSP) are large shallow basins enclosed by earth embankments in which raw
wastewater is treated by entirely natural processes involving both algae and bacteria.
The waste stabilization ponds of Eenhana have been in operation since the 1980s.
Efforts have been made in 2015 to improve the efficiency of the ponds by constructing
additional ponds to the those in existence as well as performing rehabilitation works.
However, despite these attempts, the ponds have clearly outlived their design life and
are no longer in the condition to treat the town’s domestic wastewater to meet the
effluent Standards. The purpose of this project was to redesign the waste stabilization
ponds for the town. The need was established when it was observed that the current
sewage treatment system is failing and is insufficient for the growing population of the
town. The project was carried out by evaluating the status quo of the existing ponds,
redesigning the waste stabilization ponds and estimating the total project cost. The
ponds were successfully redesigned with a pond configuration of 1 Anaerobic pond, 3
Facultative ponds in series and 4 Maturation in series with a total efficiency of 96.4%.
The new pond configuration has shown to reduce bacteria in the wastewater from
50000000 FC/100ml to 83.38 FC/100ml, which is significantly lower than the standard
of 1000FC/100ml prescribed by the Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of
Namibia.The re-design was estimated to have a capital cost of N$ 9 461 947.00.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION ......................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... v

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... x

LIST OF SYMBOLS................................................................................................ xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................. xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................. 1

1.2PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................ 2

1.3 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 3

1.4 JUSTIFICATION............................................................................................. 3

1.5 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 4

1.6 DELIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................... 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 5

2.2 WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS SYSTEMS .............................................. 6

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................... 13

EENHANA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT – CURRENT SITUATION ........... 13

3.1 GENERAL CONDITION .............................................................................. 13

3.2 LAYOUT OF EXISTING WSP ..................................................................... 14

3.3 TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING PONDS......................................................... 15

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................... 16

DESIGN METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 16

4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 16

vii
 4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ...................................................................................... 16

4.3 DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS .................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................... 19

DESIGN OF THE WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS ......................................... 19

DESIGN FOR BOD AND BACTERIA REMOVAL ........................................... 19

5.1 Design of Anaerobic WSP .............................................................................. 19

5.2 Design of Secondary facultative WSP ............................................................ 21

5.3 Design of Maturation WSP ............................................................................. 23

5.4 Final alterations of Maturation ponds........................................................... 26

5.5 Area of Maturation ponds ............................................................................... 26

5.6 Summary of results......................................................................................... 27

5.7 GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF WSP .................................................................. 28

5.8 POND LINING .............................................................................................. 29

5.9 INLET AND OUTLET STRUCTURES ......................................................... 30

CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................................... 31

COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 7 ........................................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 32

7.1 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 32

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................ 33

REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 34

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... - 1 -

APPENDIX A.................................................................................................... - 1 -

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................... - 3 -

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. GOOGLE MAP IMAGE SHOWING LOCATION OF THE PONDS TO THE WEST OF
THE TOWN CENTER. (GOOGLE MAPS,2020) ............................................................ 1

FIGURE 2 & 3 FINAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGED OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE DOWNSTREAM. .. 2

FIGURE 4 EENHANA PONDS – AIRSTRIP DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE POND AREA(GOOGLE
EARTH,2020) ....................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 5 OPERATION OF THE ANAEROBIC POND [8]. .................................................. 8
FIGURE 6 OPERATION OF THE FACULTTIVE POND[12] ............................................... 10
FIGURE 7 OPERATION OF THE MATURATION POND[14] .............................................. 12
FIGURE 8 & 9. SHOWING POND LININGS WITH PLASTIC AND HYSON CELL RESPECTIVELY
......................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 10: REED GROWTH IN POND ......................................................................... 14
FIGURE 11 FINAL EFFLUENT OVERFLOWING OUT OF THE EVAPORATION POND ............ 14
FIGURE 12 SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE EXISTING WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS OF
EENHANA (GOOGLE EARTH,2020)...................................................................... 14
FIGURE 13 CALCULATION OF TOP AND BOTTOM POND DIMENSIONS BASED ON MID-
DEPTH (MARA, 2004) ......................................................................................... 28

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 DESIGN VALUES OF VOLUMETRIC BOD LOADINGS ON AND PERCENTAGE BOD

REMOVALS IN ANAEROBIC PONDS AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES. (MARA ,2003) .... 19
TABLE 2: ALTERATIONS OF DIFFERENT DETENTION TIMES AND NUMBER OF
MATURATION PONDS. ......................................................................................... 26
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE WSP.......................................................... 27
TABLE 4 GEOMETRY OF WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS ............................................. 29
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COST .................................................... 31
TABLE 6 DETAILED BILL OF QUANTITIES................................................................ - 1 -

x
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

𝐴𝑎,𝑓,𝑚 area of anaerobic, facultative or maturation pond

𝐵𝑎,𝑓,𝑚 breadth of anaerobic, facultative or maturation pond
𝐷𝑎,𝑓,𝑚 depth of anaerobic, facultative or maturation pond
en et evaporation
𝐸𝑎,𝑓,𝑚 efficiency of anaerobic, facultative or maturation pond
𝐸𝑇 total efficiency
𝐾1(𝑇) first-order rate constant for BOD removal at given temperature
𝐾𝑏(𝑇) first-order rate constant for E coli removal at given temperature
𝐿𝑒 effluent BOD concentration
𝐿𝑖 influent BOD concentration
n number place holder, units as stated
𝑁𝑒 effluent E coli count per 100 ml
𝑁𝑖 influent E coli count per 100 ml
𝑃𝑂 initial population
𝑃𝑛 projected population
r annual population growth rate
𝛉 𝑎,𝑓,𝑚 retention times of anaerobic, facultative or maturation pond
𝜆𝑠 surface BOD loading
𝜆𝑣 volumetric BOD loading

xi
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

WSP Waste Stabilization Ponds

AWSP Anaerobic Waste Stabilizatio Pond
FWSP FacultativeStabilizatio Pond
MWSP Maturation Waste Stabilizatio Pond
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
E coli Escherichia Coli
FC Faecal Coliform
cfu Colony forming units
BOQ Bill of Quantitie

xii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND

Eenhana is a town in Ohangwena Region in the northern part of Namibia. The town
was founded in the 1930s and it is the Region's capital. According to the results of the
population and housing census of 2011, the town had a population of 5528 which is a
96.4% growth from the 2814 recorded in 2001[1].
The current population is estimated to be around 15 000 people, with over 4000 erven
already serviced[2]. The Towns’ population has been expanding at a growth rate far
above the Namibian average annual growth-rate, with an annual increament of
10.1%[1], mainly due to development by the Town Council and favorable economic
conditions that saw an increased influx of people in the last ten to 15 years. The Town
Council uplifted the general appearance of the town center in the last ten years and
developed (serviced) many new housing and business extensions. Despite a relatively
depressed Namibian economy in recent years, the town is currently thriving and
expanding, with many new extensions being developed and serviced.

For its wastewater management, the town uses waste stabilization ponds for treatment
of all sewage collected. The initial waste stabilization ponds were constructed in the
1980s, but subsequent extensions and upgrades have taken place, with the last
extensions undertaken in 2015[2]. From the map in Figure 1 below, it can be seen that
these ponds are situated on the outskirts of the town, 2 km west of the city center, with
new housing developments and extensions to the south of the ponds not even 300 m
away.

Figure 1. Google Map image showing location of the Ponds to the west of the town center. (Google
maps,2020)

1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The increase in population has added pressure on the current sewage system of the town,
which now has to deal with more waste than was originally designed for. Evidence of
this can be seen from downstream of the existing ponds, where the existing evaporation
pond is overflowing into the environment, see Figure 2. This untreated wastewater
poses a major health hazards to humans and animals. The current waste stabilization
ponds are insufficient for the town, they are currently not able to cope with the sewage
generated & collected from the town [2].The town has been reported to be struggling
with it’s waste management, according to[3],the council is faced with a mammoth
challenge of waste water disposal and treatment as the current oxidation ponds do not
have the capacity to carry the current inflow of wastewater.

It was also noted during site visitation that the current pond system is directly adjacent
to an aircraft landing strip, see Figure 4. Large surface water areas such as oxidation
ponds will always attract animals and especially birds and this presents a very real
danger of bird strikes and/or collisions with animals on the landing strip[4]. Ideally, an
airstrip should not be constructed directly next to a pond as it has been done at Eenhana.

Figure 2 & 3 Final effluent discharged outside of the fence downstream.

2
 Figure 4 Eenhana Ponds – Airstrip directly next to the pond area(Google Earth,2020)

1.3 OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 Main Objective

The main objective of the project is to redesign the Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP)
of Eenhana town.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives:

1. To evaluate the status quo of the existing WSP at Eenhana town.

2. To redesign the existing WSP treatment train.

3. To compile a Bill of Quantities of the proposed WSP.

1.4 JUSTIFICATION
The population of Eenhana is growing exponentially and therefore its waste production
is also increasing. The waste stabilization ponds of the town have been constructed in
the 1980s[2], which means they have been in operation for over 40 years. This clearly
indicates that the ponds haves outlived their usual design life. There is poor
maintenance and the final effluent from the ponds overflows to the environment
affecting the sanitation of the area. Overflowing indicates that the capacity of the ponds
cannot sustain the wastewater generated by the population. It is therefore necessary for

3
the town to have a new waste stabilization pond system, one that caters for the growing
population.

1.5 LIMITATIONS
Namibia does not have design manuals for waste stabilization ponds that can be used
to guide engineers and other experts in the design of ponds.

1.6 DELIMITATIONS
Design manuals developed by experts in waste water treatment were used for the design
project. Reasonable assumptions were made for parameters that were not established or
were unknown.

4
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) are usually the most appropriate method of domestic
and municipal wastewater treatment in developing countries, where the climate is most
favorable for their operation[5]. WSPs are low-cost (usually least-cost), low-
maintenance, highly efficient, entirely natural and highly sustainable. The only energy
they use is direct solar energy, so they do not need any electrical equipment, saving
expenditure on electricity and more skilled operation. They do require much more land
than conventional treatment processes such as activated sludge, but land is an asset
which increases in value with time, whereas money spent on electricity for the operation
of electrical systems is gone forever.

In Namibia, most of the towns use waste stabilization ponds, for treatment of
wastewater. Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP), often referred to as oxidation ponds or
lagoons, and are holding basins used for secondary wastewater (sewage effluents)
treatment where decomposition of organic matter is processed naturally, i.e.
biologically. The stabilization pond systems constitute the simplest form of wastewater
treatment. There are several variant of the stabilization pond systems, with different
levels of operational simplicity and land requirements[6]. The activity in the WSP is a
complex symbiosis of bacteria and algae, which stabilizes the waste and reduces
pathogens. The result of this biological process is to convert the organic content of the
effluent to more stable and less offensive forms. WSP are used to treat a variety of
wastewater, from domestic wastewater to complex industrial waters, and they function
under a wide range of weather conditions, i.e. tropical to arctic. They can be used alone
or in combination with other treatment processes.

WSP systems comprise one or more series of different types of ponds. Usually the first
pond in the series is an anaerobic pond and the second is a facultative pond. These may
be followed by maturation ponds but this depends on the required final effluent quality
which in turn depends on what is to be done with the effluent: - used for restricted or
unrestricted irrigation, used for fish or aquatic vegetable culture or discharged into
surface or ground water[5].

5
2.2 WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS SYSTEMS

A World Bank Report (1986) endorsed the concept of stabilization pond as the most
suitable wastewater treatment system for effluent use in agriculture. Stabilization ponds
are the preferred wastewater treatment process in developing countries, where land is
often available at reasonable opportunity cost and skilled labor is in short supply[7].

Wastewater stabilization pond systems are designed to achieve different forms of

treatment in up to three stages in series, depending on the organic strength of the input
waste and the effluent quality objectives. For ease of maintenance and flexibility of
operation, at least two trains of ponds in parallel are incorporated in any design[8].
Strong wastewater, with BOD5 concentration in excess of about 300 mg/l, will
frequently be introduced into first-stage anaerobic ponds, which achieve a high
volumetric rate of removal.
Weaker wastes or, where anaerobic ponds are environmentally unacceptable because
of the odor they produce, even stronger wastes (say up to 1000 mg/l BOD5) may be
discharged directly into primary facultative ponds. Effluent from first-stage anaerobic
ponds will overflow into secondary facultative ponds, which comprise the second-stage
of biological treatment[4]. Following primary or secondary facultative ponds, if further
pathogen reduction is necessary, maturation ponds will be introduced to provide tertiary
treatment.

As earlier mentioned, WSP can be classified in respect to the type(s) of biological

activity occurring in a pond. Three types are distinguished: anaerobic, facultative and
maturation ponds. Usually a WSP system comprises a single series of the
aforementioned three ponds types or several such series in parallel. In essence,
anaerobic and facultative ponds are designed for BOD removal and maturation ponds
for pathogen removal, although some BOD removal occurs in maturation ponds and
some pathogen removal in anaerobic and facultative ponds. In many instances only
anaerobic and facultative ponds are required. In general, maturation ponds are
required only when stronger wastewater (BOD > 150 mg/l) are to be treated prior to
surface water discharge and when the treated wastewater is to be used for unrestricted
irrigation (irrigation for vegetable crops)[9]. Generally, in WSP systems, effluent flows
from the anaerobic pond to the facultative pond and finally, if necessary, to the
maturation pond. However, for better results wastewater flowing into an anaerobic pond

6
shall be preliminarily treated in order to remove coarse solids and other large materials
often found in raw wastewater. Preliminary treatment operations typically include
coarse screening, grit removal.

In comparison to other conventional sewage treatment techniques, WSP have the

following advantages[4]:

1. Low investment, operation and maintenance costs.

2. They have a high ability to remove pathogenic bacteria from sewage.
3. They have good economics of scale starting from population sizes of a few
hundred people.
4. They can effectively treat a wide variety of industrial and agricultural wastes.
5. They can achieve any desire degree of purification at the lowest costs and with
minimum maintenance by relatively low skilled caretakers.
6. Land used for WSP can be reclaimed for other purposes.
7. Algae produced in WSP can be an excellent source of high protein for fish.

2.2.1 Anaerobic Ponds

Anaerobic ponds are the smallest units in the series and are sized according to their
volumetric loading rate which is the quantity of organic matter expressed in grams of
BOD5 applied to each cubic meter of pond volume. They are deep ponds (2 to 5 m)
devoid of dissolved oxygen, where sludge is deposited on the bottom and anaerobic
bacteria break down the organic matter by anaerobic digestion, releasing methane and
carbon dioxide. Viruses, bacteria, helminths, Ascaris eggs and other pathogens can also
be inactivated by sedimentation when associated with solids. N, P and K can also be
reduced by sludge formation and the release of ammonia into the air. However, the
main function of anaerobic ponds is BOD removal, which can be reduced 40 to 85 %
(WSP 2007). As a complete process, the anaerobic pond serves settle undigested
material and non-degradable solids as bottom sludge, dissolve organic material and
break down biodegradable organic material. The anaerobic pond acts like an uncovered
septic tank. Anaerobic bacteria break down the organic matter in the effluent, releasing
methane and carbon dioxide[8]. Sludge is deposited on the bottom and a crust forms on
the surface as shown in Figure 5.

7
 Figure 5 Operation of the Anaerobic pond [8].

BOD removal in anaerobic ponds is governed by the same mechanisms that occur in
all other anaerobic reactors[4] and anaerobic ponds do not or only rarely contain algae.
The process (as in septic tanks) relies on the sedimentation of settable solids and
subsequent anaerobic digestion in the resulting sludge layer. During anaerobic
digestion, biogas is produced which could be collected by covering the anaerobic pond
with a floating plastic membrane[10]. The recovered biogas can be used for heating,
cooking or, if sufficient amounts can be collected for energy production. Anaerobic
ponds can receive organic loads usually in the range of 100 to 350 g BOD/m3 /day[10].
They should not be operated below 10°C, and the load, which can be treated increases
linearly with temperature rise (e.g. 100 g/m3 /day at 10°C and 300g/m3 /day at 20°C).
The design temperature should be the mean of the coldest month of the year[4]. A
retention time of one day should be sufficient for a BOD5 lower than 300 mg/m3 /day
at 20°C, but the recommended retention time range varies from 2 to 5 days (WSP 2007).
For high- strength industrial wastes, up to three anaerobic ponds in series might be
necessary. The optimum pH for digestion lies at 6 to 8 and acidic wastewater thus
require neutralizing prior to treatment. Due to its toxicity to anaerobic bacteria,
ammonia concentrations should not exceed >80 mg NH3-N/L.

2.2.2 Facultative Ponds

Facultative Treatment Ponds are the simplest of all WSPs and consist of large shallow
ponds (depth of 1 to 2m) with an aerobic zone close to the surface and a deeper,
anaerobic zone. There are two types of facultative ponds: primary facultative ponds that

8
receive raw wastewater (after grit removal), and secondary facultative ponds receiving
settled wastewater usually from the anaerobic pond. In primary facultative ponds, the
functions of anaerobic and secondary facultative ponds are combined. This type of pond
is designed generally for the treatment of only slightly polluted wastewater and in
sensitive locations where anaerobic ponds’ odor would be unacceptable. Facultative
ponds are designed for BOD removal on the basis of low surface loading (unlike
anaerobic ponds which are designed according to their volumetric load) and can treat
water in the BOD range of 100 to 400 kg/ha/day corresponding to 10 to 40 g/m2 /day at
temperatures above 20°C[11].
The facultative ponds are covered by algae. The algae grow using the sunlight and they
produce oxygen in excess to their own requirements, which they transfer to the water.
It is this excess of oxygen that is used by bacteria to further break down the organic
matter via aerobic digestion (oxidation) transforming the organic pollutants into CO2.
Additionally, to aerobic and anaerobic digestion of BOD, in the facultative ponds
"sewage BOD" is converted into "algal BOD”.

The maintenance of a healthy algal population is very important as the algae generate
the oxygen needed by bacteria to remove the BOD5 . The algae give facultative ponds
a dark green colour. Ponds may occasionally appear red or pink, due to the presence of
anaerobic purple sulphide-oxidising photosynthetic bacteria (Mara and Pearson, 1986).
This change in facultative pond ecology occurs due to slight BOD5 overloading, so
colour changes in facultative ponds are a good qualitative indicator of pond function.
The concentration of algae in a well-functioning facultative pond depends on loading
and temperature. It is usually in the range 500−1000 μg chlorophyll-a per litre (algal
concentrations are best expressed in terms of the concentration of their principal
photosynthetic pigment). The photosynthetic activity of the algae results in a diurnal
variation of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and pH. The DO concentration can
rise to more than 20 mg/l (i.e., highly supersaturated conditions) and the pH to more
than 9.4 (these are both important factors in the removal of faecal bacteria and viruses;
Curtis 1992).
The algal production of oxygen occurs near the surface of aerobic ponds to the depth to
which light can penetrate (i.e. typically up to 500 mm). Additional oxygen can be
introduced by wind due to vertical mixing of the water. Oxygen is unable to be
maintained at the lower layers if the pond is too deep, and the color too dark to allow

9
light to penetrate fully or if the BOD and COD in the lower layer is higher than the
supply. As a result of the photosynthetic activities of the pond algae, there is a diurnal
variation in the concentration of dissolved oxygen. At peak sun radiation, the pond will
be mostly aerobic due to algal activity, while at sunrise the pond will be predominantly
anaerobic. Peak algae activity also results in a pH rise to above 9 since carbonate and
bicarbonate ions react to provide more carbon dioxide for the algae, leaving an excess
of hydroxyl ions. A pH above 9 for 24 hours can provide a 100% kill of E. coli and thus,
most pathogenic. At high pH, ammoniac, coming from the hydrolysis of organic
nitrogen is transformed to ammonia, which is volatilized to the air. There is little
evidence for nitrification and denitrification. But ammonia, as well as phosphorus is
also incorporated into new algal biomass and part of this is settled to the ground in non-
biodegradable death algae material. Phosphorus can also be removed by precipitation
as inorganic P, but it can also return through mineralization into the water column. The
operation of the facultative pond is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Operation of the Faculttive pond[12]

10
As a complete process, the facultative pond serves to:

Further treat wastewater through sedimentation and aerobic oxidation of organic

material, reduce odor, reduce some disease-causing microorganisms if pH raises and
store residues as bottom sludge. Facultative ponds lose ammonia into the air at high pH;
and settle some nitrogen and phosphorus in the sludge. Facultative ponds can result in
the removal of 80 to 95% of the BOD5 (WSP 2007), which means an overall removal
in the order of 95% over the two ponds (AP and FP). Total nitrogen removal in WSP
systems can reach 80% or more, and ammonia removal can be as high as 95%. The
retention time for a facultative pond lies between 5 to 30 days (WSP 2007). Sometimes
two or more consecutively smaller facultative ponds are constructed instead of a very
large one, because it is more practical for de-sludging. To remove the algae from
aerobic pond, effluents’ rock filtration, grass plots, floating macrophytes and
herbivorous fish can be used, but most commonly, the effluent flows directly in a final
maturation pond.

2.2.3 Maturation Ponds

Maturation ponds (low-cost polishing ponds, which succeed the primary or secondary
facultative pond) are primarily designed for tertiary treatment, i.e., the removal of
pathogens, nutrients and possibly algae. Whereas anaerobic and facultative ponds are
designed for BOD removal, maturation or polishing ponds are essentially designed for
pathogen removal and retaining suspended stabilized solids[10].
The size and number of maturation ponds depends on the required bacteriological
quality of the final effluent. The principal mechanisms for faecal bacterial removal in
facultative and maturation ponds are retention time, temperature, high pH (> 9), and
high light intensity. Faecal bacteria and other pathogens die off due to the high
temperature, high pH or radiation of the sun leading to solar disinfection[13]. Regarding
virus removal, little is definitely known but it is generally recognized that it occurs by
adsorption on to settable solids (including the pond algae) and consequent
sedimentation in the anaerobic and facultative pond. Some macro organisms such as
protozoan cysts and helminths eggs are also removed by sedimentation. Maturation
ponds are shallower (1 to 1.5 m), with 1 m being optimal. The recommended hydraulic
retention time is 15 to 20 days (WSP 2007). If used in combination with algae and/or
fish harvesting, this type of pond is also effective at removing the majority of nitrogen

11
and phosphorus from the effluent[10]. The operation of the maturation pond is shown
in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Operation of the maturation pond[14]

This literature review gives a range of values that depend on the temperature and BOD
loading of a particular area and the amount of wastewater generated. There is a need to
calculate the specifications of the ponds for the Eenhana town.

12
 CHAPTER 3

EENHANA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT –

CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 GENERAL CONDITION

The current pond system consists of a total of 15 ponds of varying sizes, some of which
are still in a very good physical condition and seem to have been recently constructed
or refurbished. All of the ponds except the final evaporation pond have either Hyson
cell embankments or are lined with a proper plastic liner, see Figure 8 and 9 below.

Figure 8 & 9. showing pond linings with plastic and Hyson cell respectively

There is significant Reed growth in some of the ponds, as shown in Figure 10.

13
 Figure 10: Reed growth in pond

The final pond which is an evaporation pond is merely an earth dam without properly
constructed embankments. The biggest problem is that there is still a final water
discharge from this final pond to an Oshana outside of the fenced in area, see Figure 11
below. The fence of the pond site is damaged and this gives acces to animals from the
surrounding areas.

Figure 11 Final effluent overflowing out of the evaporation pond

3.2 LAYOUT OF EXISTING WSP

Figure 12 Satellite image of the existing waste stabilization ponds of Eenhana (Google Earth,2020)

14
3.3 TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING PONDS

Due to uncertainties in the design capacity of these ponds, an assessment on site of the
actual capacity of the ponds was made. The town council presented the following
information about the ponds.

The total pond area is approximately (including final evaporation pond):

- 6 Anaerobic and Primary Ponds , total area = 24 980 m²

- 9 Secondary and Evaporation Ponds , total area = 30 595 m²

TOTAL COMBINED AREA = 55 575 m² = 5.55 ha

The depths for each unit and total retention times could not be determined due to
missing information from the Council. The redesign of the system is based on its
physical conditions and location as described in Chapter 1 and 3. The chemical
compositions of the wastewater were assumed and calculated using cited literature.

15
 CHAPTER 4

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project involves the design of a wastewater stabilization pond system to treat the
sewage from the Eenhana town to a level that it is not hazardous to the environment.
This project aims at addressing the sanitary and insufficient concerns of the existing
wastewater treatment system.

4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

4.2.1 Volumetric Organic Loading

The volumetric organic loading is the main design parameter for anaerobic ponds. It is
a function of temperature. Warmer temperature allows a large loading rate which in
turn results in smaller pond volumes. The volumetric organic loading is very crucial as
industrial wastewater vary significantly in the relationship between flow and BOD
concentration[15].

4.2.2 Surface Organic Loading

The surface loading rate is the main design criterion for Facultative ponds. It is based
on ensuring that sufficient exposure area to sunlight is provided the process of
photosynthesis to take place[15].

4.2.3 Retention Time

Retention time is associated with the time necessary for the micro organisms to stabilize
the organic matter in the wastewater. It is related to the activity of bacteria in the ponds
and the time required for the necessary processes to take place to treat the
wastewater[15].

16
4.2.4 Depth of Ponds

The depth influences the physical, biological and hydrodynamic aspects of ponds which
all impact the operation and efficiency of the ponds. After obtaining the surface areas,
the depths are adopted to compute pond volumes[15].

4.2.5 Pond Sizing

The length to breath ratio of the ponds is very important as it affects the hydrodynamic
regime in the pond, and it needs to be carefully chosen in order to avoid sludge banks
forming near inlet structures[15].

4.3 DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS

4.3.1 Design population

The population of Eenhana was recorded to be 5528 as per 2011 national census of
Namibia. Using an annual growth rate r for urban areas in Ohangwena region of
2.4%[1], a 2020 population projection of the town was calculated to be 6844 inhabitants.

𝑟
𝑃𝑛 = 𝑃𝑜(1 + 100 )𝑛 (1)

2.4 9
𝑃𝑛 = 5528(1 + ) = 6844 inhabitants.
100

However, the actual 2020 population of the town has surpassed the projected population.
According to information provided by the town council, Eenhana currently has over 15
000 inhabitants, and this will be the population that will be used for the design.

A design period of 20 years for the ponds was selected (Design period of Eenhana
infrastructure)[2]. Therefore, using equation (1) the projected population of the town in
the next 20 years is:

17
 2.4
𝑃𝑛 = 15000(1 + 100 )20 = 24 105 inhabitants.

4.3.2 Flow Estimate

According to water bills provided by the council, the town’s average water consumption
is 44 184 m3 /month.The average house in Eenhana uses about 420.8 L/day with an
average of 4 people/household. The daily water consumption is 105 L/cap/day. 85% of
water consumed is converted into wastewater[4], therefore, 89.25 L/cap/day
wastewater is generated. With a population of 24 105, the volume of wastewater
produced will be 2151.4 𝑚3 /day.

4.3.3 Temperature and Evaporation rate

The design temperature to be considered is the mean air temperature of the coldest
month[4]. The coldest month in Eenhana is July, with mean temperature of 19℃.

4.3.4 Influent 𝑩𝑶𝑫𝟓 (𝑳𝒊 )

A typical design BOD contribution figure for an urban area in a developing country
would be 45-54 𝐵𝑂𝐷5 /cap/day[4]. For Eenhana town, a value of 50g 𝐵𝑂𝐷5 /cap/day
is more suitable. Therefore, the influent BOD5 is given by equation (2)

b
Li = 1000 (q) (2)
50
= 1000 ( )
89.25

= 500mg/L

Where:

𝐋𝐢 = wastewater BOD (mg/L), b = BOD contribution (g/cap/day) and q = wastewater flow

(L/cap/day)

18
 CHAPTER 5

DESIGN OF THE WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS

DESIGN FOR BOD AND BACTERIA REMOVAL

5.1 Design of Anaerobic WSP

The anaerobic ponds are designed on the basis of volumetric BOD loading rate, 𝜆𝑣

𝜆𝑣 = L i Q / V (3)

Where Li is the effluent BOD (mg/L), Q is the flow rate (𝑚3 /𝑑𝑎𝑦) and V is the
anaerobic pond volume (𝑚3 ).
The first step is to select 𝜆𝑣 using the recommended design vales given in Table 1.

Table 1 Design values of Volumetric BOD loadings on and Percentage BOD removals in anaerobic
ponds at various temperatures. (Mara ,2003)

Temp (℃) Volumetric loading BOD Removal (%)

(g/𝒎𝟑 . 𝒅𝒂𝒚)
<10 100 40
10-20 20T-100 2T+20
20-25 10T+100 2T+20
>25 350 70

For anaerobic ponds: 3m < D < 5m and 1 days < 𝛉𝐚 < 5 days

A depth (D) of 4m was selected for the pond.

Volumetric Loading

𝜆𝑣 = 20(T) – 100 (4)

= 20(19) – 100 = 280 g/𝒎𝟑 . 𝒅𝒂𝒚

Volume of the pond

Using equation (3),

V = L i Q / 𝜆𝑣

= (560) (2151.4)/ 280 = 4302.8 𝒎𝟑

19
Retention time

𝑉
θa = (5)
𝑄

4302.8
= = 2 days
2151.4

Area

𝑉
Aa = (6)
𝐷

4302.8
= = 1075.7 𝒎𝟐
4

Assuming the L:B ratio to be 2:1. This will help avoid sludge banks forming near inlet
structures.

A = L x B ,Let L = 2B

Therefore,

A = 2B x B

1075.7 = 2B 2

B = 24 m
L = 2 (24) = 47 m

✓ One anaerobic pond of L = 47 m and B = 24 m, A = 1128 𝒎𝟐

BOD Removal

BOD Removal (%) = 2T + 20 (7)

= 2 (19) +20
= 58%

Le = 0.42 x 560 mg/L

= 235.2 mg/L

Bacteria Removal

K 𝐵 (𝑇) = 2.6 (1.19)T−20 (8)

= 2.6 (1.19)19−20
= 2.18 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔−𝟏

20
 N𝑖
N𝑒 = (9)
(1+K𝐵 (𝑇) ×θa )

N𝑖 is taken as 5 x 107 FC/100 ml (Mara,2003)

5 ×107
N𝑒 = = 9.33 × 𝟏𝟎𝟔 FC / 100 ml
(1+2.18 ×2)

The anaerobic pond effluent requires further treatment in a secondary facultative pond.

5.2 Design of Secondary facultative WSP

Surface Loading

𝜆𝑠 = 10Li Q /𝐴𝑓 (10)

Retention time
2𝐴𝑓 𝐷
θf = (11)
(2𝑄𝑖 −0.001𝑒𝐴𝑓 )

For facultative ponds: 1.4m < D < 1.8m and 4 days < 𝛉𝐟 < 35 days

Selecting a Depth of the pond to be 1.5 m

𝜆𝑠 = 350 [ 1.107 – 0.002(T) ]T−25 (12)

= 350 [ 1.107 – 0.002(T) ]19−25

= 234.53 kg/ha.day

Area of the pond

𝐴𝑓 = 10Li Q / 𝜆𝑠 (13)
= (10) (235.2) (2151.4) / 234.53

= 21575.46 𝒎𝟐

21
Retention time

Using Equation (11),

2𝐴𝑓 𝐷
θf = (2𝑄𝑖 −0.001𝑒𝐴𝑓 )

2(21575.46)(1.5)
= (2(2151.4)−0.001(5)(21575.46))

= 15.42 days 4< 15.42 <35 days, therefore, okay

Volume of pond

Vf = Af x Df (14)

= 21575.46 x 1.5

= 32363.19 𝒎𝟑

Assuming L:B ratio to be 2:1

A=LxB

3 Facultative ponds in series:

21575.46
Afacultative = = 7191.82 𝐦𝟐 each
3

A = L x B, Let L = 2B

Therefore,

A = 2B x B

7191.82 = 2B 2

B = 60 m
L = 2 (60) = 120 m

✓ Three facultative ponds in series of L = 120 m and B = 60 m each, A = 21

600 𝒎𝟐

22
BOD Removal

𝐾1 (𝑇) = 0.3 (1.05)19−20

= 0.285 days −1
𝐿𝑖
Le = (15)
(1+𝐾1 (𝑇)θ𝑓 )

235.2
= (1+(0.285)(15.42)

= 43.59 mg/L

Efficiency of the facultative ponds

𝐿𝑖 −Le
Ef = (100) (16)
𝐿𝑖

235.2−43.59
Ef = (100) = 81.5%
235.2

Bacteria Removal

𝐾𝐵 (𝑇) = 2.6 (1.19)T−20

= 2.6 (1.19)19−20
= 2.18 days −1
N𝑖
N𝑒 = (1+K𝐵 (𝑇) ×θf )

9.33 ×106
N𝑒 = = 2.695 × 𝟏𝟎𝟓 FC / 100 ml
(1+2.18 ×15.42)

5.3 Design of Maturation WSP

2𝐿𝑖
Le = (17)
(1+𝐾1 (𝑇)θ𝑚)

The method used is that of Marais (1974) for the design of a pond series for faecal coli
form removal. This assumes that faecal coli form removal can be reasonably well
represented by a first-order kinetic model in a completely-mixed reactor. The resulting
equating equation for a single pond is by:

23
 N𝑖
N𝑒 =
(1+K𝐵 (𝑇) ×θm )

Where N𝑒 and N𝑖 are the number of faecal coli form/100ml in the effluent and
influent respectively, K 𝐵 (𝑇) is the first-order rate constant for faecal removal and θm
is the retention (day).

N𝑖 is the N𝑒 from the facultative ponds

𝐾𝐵 (𝑇) = 2.6 (1.19)T−20

= 2.6 (1.19)19−20
= 2.18 days −1

The E coli count/ 100 mL of wastewater in the effluent of the secondary facultative
pond is 2.695 × 𝟏𝟎𝟓 FC / 100 ml

✓ Choosing 3 maturation ponds with retention time of 5 days each.

• The E coli count for the effluent of the first 5-day maturation pond is
given by:

2.695 ×105
N𝑒 = = 2.2647× 𝟏𝟎𝟒 FC / 100 ml
(1+2.18×5)

• The second 5-day maturation pond:

2.2647×104
N𝑒 = = 1 887.98 FC / 100 ml
(1+2.18 ×5)

• The third 5-day maturation pond:

𝟏.𝟖𝟖𝟕×𝟏𝟎𝟑
N𝑒 = = 158.57 FC / 100 ml
(1+2.18×5)

24
This final value is <<1000FC/100 ml, the guideline value for unrestricted irrigation
(Mara, 2003).
✓ Total retention time for the three maturation ponds is 15 days
✓ Depth of 1.2 m was selected for the design.

This is for a system with 1 anaerobic pond with retention time of 2 days, 3 facultative
ponds in series with retention time of 15.42 days and 3 Maturation ponds in series with
a total retention time of 15 days.

However, to find the optimum configuration that caters for all land and BOD and
Bacteria removal conditions, alterations of the maturation ponds needs to be done.

Flow from the secondary facultative ponds which is required for the design of
maturation ponds, is given by:

Q 𝑒 = Q 𝑖 – 0.001e Af (18)

= 2151.4 – 0.001(5)(21600)

= 2043.4 𝑚3/ day

25
5.4 Final alterations of Maturation ponds

Table 2: Alterations of different detention times and number of maturation ponds.

NO τ(MWSP)
AWSP FWSP MWSP Ni Ne Le EM ETOTAL τTOTAL (Days) ∑AREA (m2) ∑AREA (Ha)
MWSP DAYS
5 5 5.4 34.62 238635.4 50000000 1.13 1.57 96.40 99.72 40.7 63191.37 6.32
4 5 5.4 34.62 20053.4 50000000 13.44 1.95 95.52 99.65 35.7 55422.40 5.54
3 5 5.4 34.62 1685.2 50000000 159.92 2.59 94.07 99.54 30.7 47496.48 4.75
2 5 5.4 34.62 141.6 50000000 1903.00 3.82 91.23 99.32 25.7 39408.82 3.94

5 4 5.4 34.62 86762.4 50000000 3.11 13.41 69.23 97.61 35.7 55422.40 5.54
4 4 5.4 34.62 8926.2 50000000 30.19 16.14 62.96 97.12 31.7 49094.45 4.91
3 4 5.4 34.62 918.3 50000000 293.45 20.27 53.49 96.39 27.7 42663.61 4.27
2 4 5.4 34.62 94.5 50000000 2852.34 27.24 37.50 95.14 23.7 36127.34 3.61

5 3 5.4 34.62 24370.1 50000000 11.06 17.01 60.98 96.97 30.7 47496.48 4.75
4 3 5.4 34.62 3232.1 50000000 83.38 20.27 53.49 96.39 27.7 42663.61 4.27 *
3 3 5.4 34.62 428.7 50000000 628.67 25.09 42.45 95.53 24.7 37771.44 3.78
2 3 5.4 34.62 56.9 50000000 4740.13 32.90 24.53 94.14 21.7 32818.86 3.28

Therefore, the pond configuration selected:

✓ 1 Anaerobic pond, 3 Facultative ponds in series and 4 Maturation ponds in

series.

✓ Total Area: 4.27 ha

✓ Total Retention time: 27.7 days and Overall efficiency: 96.39%

5.5 Area of Maturation ponds

𝟐Q𝑖 θm 2(2043.4)(4x3)
A𝑀 = = = 19 935.6 m2
(2𝐷+0.001𝑒θm ) (2(1.2)+0.001(5)(4x3)

19 935.6
A= = 4 984 m2 for each maturation pond
4

A = L x B, Let L = 2B

Therefore,

A = 2B x B

26
4 984 = 2B 2

B = 50 m
L = 2 (50) = 100 m

✓ Four Maturation ponds in series of L = 100 m and B = 50 m each, A = 20

000 𝒎𝟐

5.6 Summary of results

Table 3: Summary of results of the WSP

1 Anaerobic Pond 3 Facultative 4 Maturation

Ponds Ponds
Influent BOD (gm/l) 560 235.2 43.59
Pond Depth (m) 4 1.5 1.2
2
Pond Area (m ) 1128 21 600 20 000
Retention time (day) 2 15.42 12
Length (m) 47 120 100
Breadth (m) 24 60 50
3
Volume (𝑚 ) 4 302.8 32 363.2 23 922.72
Effluent B0D (gm/l) 235.2 43.59 20.27
Influent faecal
coliform 5 × 107 9.33 × 106 3.022 × 105
(FC/100ml)
Effluent faecal
coliform 9.33 × 106 2.695 × 105 83.38
(FC/100ml)

27
5.7 GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF WSP

The operational success of waste stabilization ponds depends not only on the process
aspects discussed in the previous chapters, but also on the design detailing and of the
construction aspects. In general terms, the aspects associated with earthmoving are of
fundamental importance, and are likely to have a decisive influence on the economy of
the plant. In a more specific aspect, the several details regarding inlet , outlet and
interconnection between units are also very important as they have a direct impact on
the hydraulic behaviour of the ponds[6].
The detailing aspects should also be considered from the point of view of the operator’s
needs, in order to make the operational routine of the plant as simple and easy as
possible.
Figure 13 shows how to calculate dimensions of the waste stabilization ponds.

Figure 13 Calculation of top and bottom pond dimensions based on mid-depth (Mara, 2004)

Where:

F= Free board
L= mid-depth length
L @ W.L. = Length at water level
D= depth
n= Slope

28
Table 4 Geometry of Waste stabilization ponds
Anaerobic
WSP Facultative WSP Maturation WSP

Pond Lengths (m)

Internal slope 1:3 1:3 1:3

Horizontal ratio(n) 3 3 3

Depth (m) 4 1.5 1.2

Mid -Length (m) 47 120 99

Bottom Length (m) 35 116 96

Water level Length
(m) 59 125 104

Freeboard (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5

Pond width (m)

Mid-Length (m) 24 60 50

Bottom width (m) 12 56 47

Water Level width (m) 36 65 55

See Technical drawings in Appendix B

5.8 POND LINING

The beds of the ponds are to be lined with a 300mm thick layer of clay, clay lining
should be protected from drying and cracking during construction whereas the inner
embankments are to lined with a layer of Hyson cells , the Hyson Cells liner is a flexible
concrete liner that is more forgiving of a certain amount of movement of the underlying
material than a conventional concrete liner. Any movement is distributed over a number
of blocks which then "lock up". The pond bottom should be made as level as possible.
The outer embankments are to be covered with vegetation to protect against erosion.
The choice of material was done as to minimize on costs as both lining materials can
be sourced locally.

29
5.9 INLET AND OUTLET STRUCTURES

Determination of Inlet Diameters[15].

𝑷𝒘 = (𝟎. 𝟑 × 𝒌 × 𝑷𝒂) V 3 𝒘 A (19)

𝑃𝑤 = Power supplied by Wind

K = 0.0011 for wind velocity measured at 10 m
𝑃𝑎 = air density (kg/m3 ) ≈ 1.3 kg/m3
𝑉𝑤 = Wind velocity (m/s) ≈ 2.7 m/s
A = Pond surface area (m2 )

𝑷𝒊 = 𝟖𝟏𝟏Q3 /∅4 (20)

Q = flow rate (m3 /s) = 0.025m3 /s

Ø = pipe diameter (m)

Inlet equivalence: 𝑷𝒘 = 𝑷𝒊
Using the equations above, the following diameters were obtained:
Anaerobic inlet = 0.160 m
Facultative inlet = 0.120 m
Maturation inlet = 0.130 m

30
 CHAPTER 6

COST ESTIMATE

Table 5 Summary of estimated project cost

Bill Number Description Amount (N$)

1 Site Clearance 41 600.00

2 Excavation and Earthworks 6 516 000.00

3 Pond Lining and Protection 267 200.00

4 Pipe works 150 000.00

5 Inlet & Outlet Structures 350 000.00

6 Security 155 000.00

Sub Total 7 479 800.00

10% Contigencies 8 227 780.00

15% VAT 9 461 947.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 9 461 947.00

The detailed Bill of Quantities is presented in Appendix A

31
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 CONCLUSION

According to the specific objectives, the waste stabilization ponds of Eenhana were
successfully redesigned with pond configuration of 1 Anaerobic pond, 3 Facultative
ponds in series and 4 Maturation ponds in series. The arrangement covers an area of 4.3
ha. The designed pond system has an overall efficiency of 96.4 % and a total detention
time of 27.7 days.

The anaerobic pond is designed for BOD removal according to volumetric loading to
reduce the BOD loading of the wastewater generated. The sludge is deposited at the
bottom of the pond and broken down by the anaerobic bacteria. The pond is trapezoidal
in shape so as to avoid erosion of the pond banks and has a slope of 1:3. A length:
breadth ratio of 2:1 is used and this is to ensure that sludge banks do not form around
the inlet structure. The pond has retention time of 2 days and this reduces the BOD
loading from 560mg/l in the influent to 235.2mg/l.

The facultative pond is also used for BOD removal but is designed according to surface
loading. The surface loading of the pond is based on temperature and is called the
empirical method. (mean coldest temperature in the year- 19℃). The sludge is also
deposited at the bottom of the pond and the pond is trapezoidal in shape for the same
reason as the anaerobic pond. A length: breadth ratio of 2:1 is used to ensure that sludge
banks do not form around the inlet structures of the pond and the slope ratio is 1:3. The
pond has a retention time of 15.42 days during which the influent BOD which is
235.2mg/l reduces to 43.59.4mg/l in the effluent.

The maturation pond is designed according to Marais method (1974) for faecal removal.
It is also trapezoidal in shape to avoid erosion of the pond banks and has a slope of 1:3.
The length: breadth ratio is 2:1 to better approximate plug flow conditions. The pond
has a retention time of 12 days for complete decomposition and together with the
previous ponds, the retention time is enough to reduce the faecal coliform from 5 000

32
0000/100ml to 83.38FC/100ml which falls within the acceptable standards of the
Department of water affairs of the Republic of Namibia of 1000FC/100ml.

The re-design is estimated to have a capital cost of N$ 9 461 947.00 which includes
labour and consultations with expert in the engineering profession.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Regular maintenance should be carried out in order to maintain the Waste

stabilization ponds efficiency.
2. It is necessary to have by-pass pipes for the anaerobic ponds so that during
desludging operations, the ponds will still be operational.
3. The inlet and outlet structures must be positioned in diagonally opposite corners
for each pond, prevent hydraulic short-circuiting.
4. Screens should be installed at the inlet of the receiving ponds to assist with
avoiding blockages at the inlet. Screenings should also be regularly removed at
the inlet.
5. Regular assessment regarding whether or not the effluent complies with the
local discharge or reuse standards, needs to be done.
6. The location of the new ponds should not be close to the current ponds, this is
due to the proximity of the Eenhana airport to the ponds.

33
 REFERENCES

[1] Namibia. National Planning Commission, "Namibia 2011 Population And

Housing Census", Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Preliminary
Results, no. April. 2012.

[2] G. Lempert ; T. Seifar ,"Eenhana Town Council Sewage Treatment

Situation",Assesment and Conceptual Design Report,” vol. 2, no. 1, May 2018.

[3] A. Nuusita, “Eenhana Struggles with Waste Management,” New Era, p. 3,

2019.

[4] D. Mara, "Domestic wastewater treatment in developing countries", 2003

[5] M. Pena Varon and D. Mara, “Waste Stabilisation Ponds,” no. July, 2004.

[6] M. Von Sperling, “Waste Stabilisation Ponds,” Biological Wastewater and

Treatment Series, vol. 3, pp. 1–5, 2007.

[7] USA.The World Bank, “The World Bank Annual Report,” pp. 47–52, 1986.

[8] R. Hamzah, “Design and Perfomance of Waste Stabilization Ponds,” 1999 .

[9] M.I. Al-Hashimi and H. T. Hussain, “Stabilization Pond For Wastewater

Treatment,” vol. 9, no. 14, pp. 278–294, May 2013.

[10] E. Tilley, C. Lüthi, L. Ulrich and C. Zurbrügg, “Compendium of Sanitation

Systems and Technologies,”no.2, pp. 98-136, 2008

[11] D. Mara and P. Howard, "Design Manual for Waste Stabilization Ponds in
Mediterranean countries", 1998.

[12] E. Tchobanoglous and G. Schroeder,“Water Quality : Characteristics,

modeling, modification,” Water Quality Management, vol. 1, no. February,
1987.

[13] T.P Curtis and D. Mara, “Influence of pH, Oxygen and Humic Substances on
Ability of Sunlight to Damage Faecal Coliforms in Waste Stabilization Pond
water,” 1992.

[14] D.Dias and M. Von Sperling, “Solar radiation (PAR, UV-A, UV-B) penetration
in a shallow maturation pond operating in a tropical climate,” Water Science
Technology., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 182–191, 2017.

[15] A. Shilton and J. Harrison, "Guidelines for the HYDRAULIC DESIGN of Waste
Stabilisation Ponds",2003.

34
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Table 6 Detailed Bill of Quantities

Item Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount(N$)

1 SITE ha 6.4 6500 41 600.00
CLEARANCE
Clear site of all
vegetation,i.e
grass,bushes, shrubs
and tress. Then rake
the soil with motor
graders until the area
becomes pure soil.
2 EXCAVATION
AND
EARTHWORKS
a) Excavate
material to m3 69 800 75 5 235 000.00
form
trapezoidal
shape and
keep for reuse
as
embankment
filling.
b) Compact
embankments
in 150-
250mm layers m3 23 300 55 1 281 500.00
to 90% of
MDD, slope
1:3
3 POND LINING
AND
PROTECTION
a) Provide
300mm clay m3 5 700 45 256 500.00
layer for bed
of the ponds
b) Provide
Hyson cells
lining for m2 16 700 16 267 200.00
inner
embankments
4 PIPEWORKS
Provide 0.3m A.C pipes 150 000.00
to connect ponds and
for by-pass pipes

-1-
5 INLET AND
OUTLET 350 000.00
STRUCTURES
6 SECURITY
a) Provide chain
link fence
around the site
and a double
150 000.00
swing gate
b) Provide
warning
notices in
appropriate
language
5000.00
SUB TOTAL 7 479 800.00
10 %
Contingencies 8 227 780.00
15 % VAT 9 461 947.00
Grand Total 9 461 947.00

-2-
APPENDIX B

Technical Drawings

-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
 POND LINING ,OUTLET AND
INLET STRUCTURES
160mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE 120mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE
15MPa MASS CONCRETE ENCASING 15MPa MASS CONCRETE 130mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE HYSON CELL LINING
ENCASING 15MPa MASS CONCRETE FOR INNER EMBANKMENTS
ENCASING

water level water level

pond bed pond bed

384

4605

384
4605 4605

384

384
4605 4605
3768 3307 3692
1382

3288

AWSP INLET STRUCTURE AWSP OUTLET STRUCTURE" FWSP INLET STRUCTURE

SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 MWSP INLET STRUCTURE
FWSP OUTLET STRUCTURE"
SCALE 1:100
SCALE 1:100

Client:
EENHANA TOWN
COUNCIL

500

HYSON CELL LINING DETAIL Approved Date:

1473
by Client:
Copyright of this drawing reserved
WATER LEVEL
COPYRIGHT RESERVED

Embankment fill compacted REDESIGN OF EENHANA WSP

to 90% MOD AASHTO of 150-250 mm
LINING DETAIL layers

UNAM: CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

LINING DETAIL DESIGNED: ISRAEL HAIMBILI (201501969)

SCALE 1 : 20 APPROVAL BY CLIENT
SUPERVISOR: PROF DAMAS MASHAURI
FOR CLIENT

DATE
DECEMBER 2020 SCALE AS SHOWN

CONSULTANT DRAWING NO. CLIENT DRAWING NO.

-----
REVISIONS A SHEET SIZE A3

PLAN AND SECTIONS OF WSP

1:3 4,5

62
35

12 32,5 70mm
water
1m
TWL
concrete
for
protectionØ
slabPIPE
widelevel
erosion

Facultative & Maturation Pond Inlet Structure

150mm Ø PIPE Scum Box

2 AWSP 1,7 Anaerobic Pond Inletwater

Structure
level

116

131 107
96 Client:

EENHANA
COUNCIL
TOWN

by Client:
Approved Copyright of this
Date:
drawing reserved
2

COPYRIGHT RESERVED Pond

Weir Outlet Structure
Structure

56 71 47 55

REDESIGN OF EENHANA WSP

UNAM: CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN

DESIGNED: ISRAEL
SUPERVISOR: PROFHAIMBILI
DAMAS MASHAURI
(201501969)
FOR CLIENT
APPROVALPROJECT
BY CLIENT

116 MWSP CONSULTANT DRAWING NO.

DECEMBER 2020 CLIENT
DATE
SCALE
AS SHOWNDRAWING NO.

131 REVISIONS A -----

SHEET SIZE A3

FWSP All dimensions in m

PLAN AND SECTIONS OF WSP

4,5

1:3 35
62
32,5
12

AWSP
1,7
2

116
96
131
107 Client:
EENHANA TOWN
COUNCIL

Approved Date:
by Client:
Copyright of this drawing reserved
COPYRIGHT RESERVED
71

55
56

47

REDESIGN OF EENHANA WSP

UNAM: CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

DESIGNED: ISRAEL HAIMBILI (201501969) APPROVAL BY CLIENT

SUPERVISOR: PROF DAMAS MASHAURI
FOR CLIENT

MWSP
DATE
DECEMBER 2020 SCALE AS SHOWN
116 CONSULTANT DRAWING NO. CLIENT DRAWING NO.

-----
131 REVISIONS SHEET SIZE A3
A

All dimensions in m
FWSP

-8-
 POND LINING ,OUTLET AND
INLET STRUCTURES
160mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE 120mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE
15MPa MASS CONCRETE ENCASING 15MPa MASS CONCRETE 130mm Ø uPVC CLASS 6 PIPE HYSON CELL LINING
ENCASING 15MPa MASS CONCRETE FOR INNER EMBANKMENTS
ENCASING

water level water level

pond bed pond bed

384

460

384
5 5
460 460
5

384

384
5 460
3692 460 5
3768 3307
1382

3288

AWSP INLET STRUCTURE AWSP OUTLET STRUCTURE" FWSP INLET STRUCTURE

SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 MWSP INLET STRUCTURE
FWSP OUTLET STRUCTURE"
SCALE 1:100
SCALE 1:100

Client:
EENHANA TOWN
COUNCIL

500

HYSON CELL LINING DETAIL Approved Date:

by Client:

1473
Copyright of this drawing reserved
WATER LEVEL
COPYRIGHT RESERVED

Embankment fill compacted REDESIGN OF EENHANA WSP

to 90% MOD AASHTO of 150-250 mm
LINING DETAIL layers

UNAM: CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

LINING DETAIL DESIGNED: ISRAEL HAIMBILI (201501969)

SCALE 1 : 20 APPROVAL BY CLIENT
SUPERVISOR: PROF DAMAS MASHAURI
FOR CLIENT

DATE
DECEMBER 2020 SCALE AS SHOWN

CONSULTANT DRAWING NO. CLIENT DRAWING NO.

-----
REVISIONS A SHEET SIZE A3

-9-
 PLAN AND SECTIONS OF WSP

4,5
1:3 35
62

32,5
12
AWSP

1,7
2

116
96
131
107 Client:
EENHANA TOWN
COUNCIL

Approved Date:
by Client:
Copyright of this drawing reserved
COPYRIGHT RESERVED
71

55
56

47
REDESIGN OF EENHANA WSP

UNAM: CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

DESIGNED: ISRAEL HAIMBILI (201501969) APPROVAL BY CLIENT

SUPERVISOR: PROF DAMAS MASHAURI
FOR CLIENT

MWSP
DATE
DECEMBER 2020 SCALE AS SHOWN
116 CONSULTANT DRAWING NO. CLIENT DRAWING NO.

-----
131 REVISIONS SHEET SIZE A3
A

All dimensions in m
FWSP
-10-